Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[RR503]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s true. But without some serious additional infrastructure (starting with 2nd Ave), we have no choice but to interline across the B-Division once the  train enters the picture. Interlining has been a part of NYC subway operations almost right from the start. Getting transit planners and to see that in a different light would require breaking with more than a century’s worth of city transit planning. 

I think modern day transit planners are all too aware of the dangers associated with interlining. Just because we don’t hear deinterlining proposals doesn’t mean that the agency doesn’t want them — politics are a critically important mediating force here. And at any rate “this is how it’s always been done” =/= “this is how it should be done,” with the qualification that you need to be cognizant of adaptive infrastructure changes when shifting paradigms. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by RR503

[vanshnookenraggen]

 

Looking at my old work, pre-deinterlining, is hard to stomach. The whole thing now seems far to over thought.

@RR503 have gone back and forth on what to do with 2nd Ave now that the lack of express tracks has cemented it firmly into an interlined system. I drew up this map which is based off the deinterlined plan (which now becomes a REinterlined plan!) I think this is how you can build 2nd Ave into the network by doing the least amount of interlined damage and least amount of new construction.

Broadway Express trains get cut back to 57th St as they once did. Instead of reworking all of Chrystie St (which, lets be honest, will be a huge pain) 2nd Ave will branch with one track continuing south along the current trajectory (Grand St and south) and one connecting to the Williamsburg Bridge tracks used by the  . The  swings down Park Row and links up with the Nassau St Subway but will require a new tunnel between Broad St and Court St (NYTM) to connect to IND Fulton.

In the old plan I figured you could just hack the new connection into the Montague Tunnel but with a deinterlined plan you don't have the extra capacity anymore and I'm not so sure the grades of such a connection would really work. The nice thing with this plan is that if we don't need/can't afford a new tunnel then Broad St is a fine terminal for the time being. Instead of the  up 2nd Ave the  , taking over from the M today, will reroute up there. On the Brooklyn end of things the  takes over Culver Local while the  goes full express. 

No plan is going to be perfect but I fell like this plan at least keeps the interline merges to an acceptable level. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle aren't going to see any deinterlining in the bigger plan so this just keeps shuffles the cards, so to speak. We could just send the  back to Chambers St and have the second 2nd Ave service go to Euclid, though I'm not really a fan of that. Queens Blvd gets reinterlined but that basically has to happen unless there is a brand new trunk line built. Having a direct east side train will do wonders for delays on the Lex from transfers so maybe it's worth the trade off? What to do with the Broadway Express is open to whatever future needs look like. I've drawn in a couple ideas, a new tunnel to Queens for a Northern Blvd Line or Super-express, and even an express line under Central Park to take over the 6 (why not!)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

Looking at my old work, pre-deinterlining, is hard to stomach. The whole thing now seems far to over thought.

@RR503 have gone back and forth on what to do with 2nd Ave now that the lack of express tracks has cemented it firmly into an interlined system. I drew up this map which is based off the deinterlined plan (which now becomes a REinterlined plan!) I think this is how you can build 2nd Ave into the network by doing the least amount of interlined damage and least amount of new construction.

Broadway Express trains get cut back to 57th St as they once did. Instead of reworking all of Chrystie St (which, lets be honest, will be a huge pain) 2nd Ave will branch with one track continuing south along the current trajectory (Grand St and south) and one connecting to the Williamsburg Bridge tracks used by the  . The  swings down Park Row and links up with the Nassau St Subway but will require a new tunnel between Broad St and Court St (NYTM) to connect to IND Fulton.

In the old plan I figured you could just hack the new connection into the Montague Tunnel but with a deinterlined plan you don't have the extra capacity anymore and I'm not so sure the grades of such a connection would really work. The nice thing with this plan is that if we don't need/can't afford a new tunnel then Broad St is a fine terminal for the time being. Instead of the  up 2nd Ave the  , taking over from the M today, will reroute up there. On the Brooklyn end of things the  takes over Culver Local while the  goes full express. 

No plan is going to be perfect but I fell like this plan at least keeps the interline merges to an acceptable level. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle aren't going to see any deinterlining in the bigger plan so this just keeps shuffles the cards, so to speak. We could just send the  back to Chambers St and have the second 2nd Ave service go to Euclid, though I'm not really a fan of that. Queens Blvd gets reinterlined but that basically has to happen unless there is a brand new trunk line built. Having a direct east side train will do wonders for delays on the Lex from transfers so maybe it's worth the trade off? What to do with the Broadway Express is open to whatever future needs look like. I've drawn in a couple ideas, a new tunnel to Queens for a Northern Blvd Line or Super-express, and even an express line under Central Park to take over the 6 (why not!)

Aw man, and just when I was starting to warm up to the idea of connecting the  and  to Williamsburg. I mean, that could make this idea well worth considering:

https://mobile.twitter.com/vanshnook/status/1360337687970996224

A 6th Ave service instead of a Broadway service up 2nd? Yes, I think you got it. I never thought of that. And you can have a full Culver local/express. That plan is definitely a feasible way of having a full length SAS, with a Queens service and much of the B-Division de-interlined. I guess one trade-off is that Broadway express service terminates at 57th & 7th. But, like I said further back, reconfiguring the  and  to go onto the Willy B will be one hell of a project. 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Caelestor]

Assuming the  stays via Manhattan Bridge and there's some variant of the  /  via 63 St and the  via 53 St to maximize Queens capacity in the near future, lower SAS will have no obvious branch that it can connect to at its northern end. As for the its southern end, lower SAS can have direct access to the Financial District and Brooklyn, by building the Whitehall St - Court St tunnel first to extend the  towards Euclid Ave. This frees up the Montague tunnel for the Nassau St line, and then it, and perhaps the Chrystie St -Williamsburg Bridge connection, can be redirected up 2 Ave. Essentially, Phases 3 and 4 would be swapped for construction feasibility purposes.

Terminating the  at a lower level beneath the existing 72 St  station is probably the best plan for "Phase 3" until a northern continuation can be identified. Track connections to upper SAS and 63 St can be built to increase flexibility in the meantime but they won't be used in regular service because the 63 St lines should be maxed out. Maybe the  could continue express up 2 Ave, stopping only at 116 St before going into the Bronx; alternatively, it can turn east into Queens and run under Astoria Blvd towards Flushing.

[vanshnookenraggen]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Aw man, and just when I was starting to warm up to the idea of connecting the  and  to Williamsburg. I mean, that could make this idea well worth considering:

https://mobile.twitter.com/vanshnook/status/1360337687970996224

A 6th Ave service instead of a Broadway service up 2nd? Yes, I think you got it. I never thought of that. And you can have a full Culver local/express. That plan is definitely a feasible way of having a full length SAS, with a Queens service and much of the B-Division de-interlined. I guess one trade-off is that Broadway express service terminates at 57th & 7th. But, like I said further back, reconfiguring the  and  to go onto the Willy B will be one hell of a project. 

 

I mean  on the Jamaica Line is still a good idea. But even with the capacity improvements you get with deinterlining and CBTC the Jamaica Line isn't going to be able to handle  and  trains; I think turning the J into basically a shuttle isn't the best plan even with a redesigned Essex St station. And since this plan would cut off all of the Jamaica/Myrtle Lines from a 2nd Ave transfer you'd really have to prove that such a switch would have overwhelming benefits. With this newer plan at least you've got direct east side service and transfers to 6th Ave service. 

[vanshnookenraggen]

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Assuming the  stays via Manhattan Bridge and there's some variant of the  /  via 63 St and the  via 53 St to maximize Queens capacity in the near future, lower SAS will have no obvious branch that it can connect to at its northern end. As for the its southern end, lower SAS can have direct access to the Financial District and Brooklyn, by building the Whitehall St - Court St tunnel first to extend the  towards Euclid Ave. This frees up the Montague tunnel for the Nassau St line, and then it, and perhaps the Chrystie St -Williamsburg Bridge connection, can be redirected up 2 Ave. Essentially, Phases 3 and 4 would be swapped for construction feasibility purposes.

Terminating the  at a lower level beneath the existing 72 St  station is probably the best plan for "Phase 3" until a northern continuation can be identified. Track connections to upper SAS and 63 St can be built to increase flexibility in the meantime but they won't be used in regular service because the 63 St lines should be maxed out. Maybe the  could continue express up 2 Ave, stopping only at 116 St before going into the Bronx; alternatively, it can turn east into Queens and run under Astoria Blvd towards Flushing.

This could all work well for Brooklyn. But Queens has serious demand to Midtown East. This plan wouldn't even allow for a transfer to 2nd Ave unless it was run up 3rd Ave (which isn't the worst idea).

Alternatively Phase 3 of 2nd Ave, at least between 63rd and 42nd, could (*should*) have 4 tracks. That way you can connect to 63rd St Tunnel first and then when you want to expand/deinterline you can thread a new tunnel into 2nd Ave south of 63rd St. North of there... do whatever? No clear, easy solutions here.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

I mean  on the Jamaica Line is still a good idea. But even with the capacity improvements you get with deinterlining and CBTC the Jamaica Line isn't going to be able to handle  and  trains; I think turning the J into basically a shuttle isn't the best plan even with a redesigned Essex St station. And since this plan would cut off all of the Jamaica/Myrtle Lines from a 2nd Ave transfer you'd really have to prove that such a switch would have overwhelming benefits. With this newer plan at least you've got direct east side service and transfers to 6th Ave service. 

I suppose that’s true. I was going to suggest a possible scenario of the  running its current route, but all stops at all times, with the  running to/from Metropolitan replacing the , and the  running to/from Jamaica Center weekdays only (same hours as the current ) with peak direction express between Woodhaven Blvd and Marcy Ave (effectively replacing the ). But that would likely force the  and  to run less frequently than they do now. And of course there’s the matter of extending all of the Eastern Division platforms. Your  service would need for only the joint   stops and the Myrtle Line stops to get lengthened platforms, but not the Jamaica Line ones.

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Assuming the  stays via Manhattan Bridge and there's some variant of the  /  via 63 St and the  via 53 St to maximize Queens capacity in the near future, lower SAS will have no obvious branch that it can connect to at its northern end. As for the its southern end, lower SAS can have direct access to the Financial District and Brooklyn, by building the Whitehall St - Court St tunnel first to extend the  towards Euclid Ave. This frees up the Montague tunnel for the Nassau St line, and then it, and perhaps the Chrystie St -Williamsburg Bridge connection, can be redirected up 2 Ave. Essentially, Phases 3 and 4 would be swapped for construction feasibility purposes.

Terminating the  at a lower level beneath the existing 72 St  station is probably the best plan for "Phase 3" until a northern continuation can be identified. Track connections to upper SAS and 63 St can be built to increase flexibility in the meantime but they won't be used in regular service because the 63 St lines should be maxed out. Maybe the  could continue express up 2 Ave, stopping only at 116 St before going into the Bronx; alternatively, it can turn east into Queens and run under Astoria Blvd towards Flushing.

Can’t the  just continue northbound into The Bronx via Third Avenue? That’s a very densely populated area with tons of people who use transit. I’m guessing the  would run roughly 20 tph while the  operates roughly 10 tph and the  could probably do the same.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Once I get going I can't stop

I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the  connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead?

The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view.
 

This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new).

I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky.

If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the  run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service.  via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the  of course  ) where as the  via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now.

The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall.

But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.

Edited March 19, 2021 by vanshnookenraggen

[R10 2952]

For what it's worth, I think tying SAS into the Montague Tunnel would actually make sense.  At the very least, it gives 4th Avenue Brooklyn riders a seat to the East Side.  And to piggyback off of what you were saying earlier about 4-tracking, if they did that all the way down to Water Street-Hanover Square, they could kill two birds with one stone; create cross-platform transfers at Chrystie St station, and tie in the west of Essex.  Over the years it's become clear to me that the Nassau Line is too close to the , and too far from the East River to either attract or generate sufficient ridership on it's own.  If they ever had an opportunity, I would say Nassau has to go- the configuration there has never worked right.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

16 hours ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

Once I get going I can't stop

I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the  connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead?

The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view.
 

This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new).

 

I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky.

If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the  run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service.  via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the  of course  ) where as the  via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now.

The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall.

But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.

Also, tie-ins to the existing subway under Broad St would have to be built from scratch, whereas the Montague provisions are already there. And the new tunnel would be a bit further south, which would make getting into Court St way easier. Nassau/2nd Ave can have full use of the existing Montague Tunnel. And if the  is to run  ~20 tph, it’ll need it. 

I also noticed you now have the  going to/from Upper 2nd Avenue and a V service going from 2nd Ave to Jamaica Center, so the  would remain the same as now from Rockefeller Center to Metropolitan, eliminating the need to extend its Brooklyn and Myrtle Line platforms. But in this case you’ll have to run additional  trains to provide the Brooklyn express service. But the V trains can be 10 cars long so there’s no loss of capacity to Parsons-Archer.

Edited March 19, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[vanshnookenraggen]

19 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I also noticed you now have the  going to/from Upper 2nd Avenue and a V service going from 2nd Ave to Jamaica Center, so the  would remain the same as now from Rockefeller Center to Metropolitan, eliminating the need to extend its Brooklyn and Myrtle Line platforms. But in this case you’ll have to run additional  trains to provide the Brooklyn express service. But the V trains can be 10 cars long so there’s no loss of capacity to Parsons-Archer.

Yes but there is a caveat here: Queens Blvd needs 10 cars @ 75' where the BMT side of things can only handle 10 cars at 60'. Upgrading the BMT to 660' would be expensive and unnecessary. With this in mind I much prefer the V to be a QBL local instead. Under this design the  would have to be local as well. Alternatively the V could use 75' cars and terminate at the proposed Chatham Sq-Chambers St station which would have to be designed with either a third track or lower level. I'm a fan of at least a third track here *anyway* so it's not an outrageous plan.

While we can argue for days which service would be best as the local or express, I think that the 41 Av/NB infill station at least offers enough transfer flexibility to render that argument less important.

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/16/2021 at 12:53 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, I think there is a time and a place for capacity restriction, but with the exception of the Queens Blvd Line and bypass I don't think most places in the outer boroughs need the full 30 at least for the decade after it opens.

Where I am more concerned is SAS Phases III and IV, because Manhattan *is* busy enough to need all that capacity.

Yes, as I think eventually (though not for a while because the pandemic likely made permanent changes in how people work) you will need a full SAS AND a rebuilt 3rd Avenue EL to handle that level of capacity.

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:56 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Once I get going I can't stop

I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the  connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead?

The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view.
 

This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new).

I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky.

If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the  run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service.  via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the  of course  ) where as the  via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now.

The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall.

But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.

And this is why I would if possible build a newer tunnel for the SAS that would go towards Schermerhorn Street in Brooklyn for the that would come in at what currently is the Transit Museum (Court Street) and then go to the currently-unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and become the Fulton Street local, allowing the and to both be 24/7 express lines and the becoming the full-time Lefferts line and the  the full-time Rockaway line. 

[mrsman]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:56 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

 

Thank you so much for this map.  You have brought a lot of good ideas to the discussion.

First, the intersection of lines at 63rd and 2nd.  You have  going on 63rd and  going on 2nd.   transitions as an upper 2nd and lower 63rd (to 6th Ave) and the "space" that is displaced by it is taken up by V, which transitions as an upper 63rd to Queens and a lower 2nd to Downtown.

Is this operationally similar to the current operations at Gold street interlocking where  is Broadway-Brighton,  is 6th-4th,  is the transition from Broadway to 4th and  is the transition from 6th-Brighton?  While Gold street does cause delays, we know that with careful planning one can ensure that there is no holdup here.   and  can transverse at the same time without interfering with each other and so can  and .  But if  and  both come off the bridge at the same time, we know that there will be delays since both cannot occupy the Brighton tracks at the same time, and thus we have cascading delays (that de-interlining seeks to avoid).

Also, I suppose one could decide to truncate  and  at 57th/6th and then have the Broadway express trains continue on 63rd with  to 125th/2nd and  to the QB express?  Whichever service (6th or Broadway) is truncated to 57th would probably be limited in the number of TPH that can serve the line.  Overall, it is probably better to leave it as you did and have the Broadway express line limited to the turning capacity of 57th/7th, since it only serves one line, but the 6th Ave local will carry all of the Midtown passengers of both Culver and Myrtle (and transfers from the Jamaica line as well).  Furthermore, one can replicate the pre-SAS operating pattern where some of the Astoria trains go express.  If the express trains start at 57th, there will be less interference if the  makes the local to express switch there.

I just wanted to point out that trunk lines that terminate without splitting into two branches would be more limited in the number of trains that service it.  So the 8th Ave local couldn't possibly run 30 TPH, if all service terminates at WTC, since the service on the line would be limited by the turning capacity of WTC.  (Broadway expresses would be similarly limited if all Broadway expresses terminated at 57th.)

If we assume that the future phases of SAS has no budget for the Whitehall-Court tunnel that  trains will use on the above map, will it then make sense to run Q from 57th to CI via Brighton line, N from Astoria via Bwy and Brighton express to Brighton Beach and R as the Astoria-Whitehall Broadway local?  I definitely see the benefits of having 2nd Ave trains instead of Broadway locals serving the Montague tunnel and the West End line.

And, finally, is there any feasible way to have both T and V going straight down 2nd Ave without turning so that F and M can go straight down 63rd without turning and establishing a transfer between the two lines?  Say a station on the SAS at 61st and a walkway from the existing 63rd/Lex station where we can also tie in 59th/Lex.  Sort of a gateway station complex for the northeast corner of Midtown that services 6th Ave locals (Queens express)*, Broadway locals (Astoria), SAS, Lex locals, and Lex expresses.  But doing so in this manner will avoid the interlining that would otherwise occur at 63rd/2nd under the above map.

 

* If F and M are along 63rd, I would imagine you would prefer to send these as Queens locals due to the platform length issues on the Myrtle line.  I know one of your other maps had 8th-53rd-QB express and 6th-63rd-QB local for that reason.  In order to preserve connectivity between the QB local stations and LIC, the 8th-53rd line has to be connected to the QB local, so that would still force all 6th-63rd trains to the QB express.  If that is the case, I can see three ways of addressing the short platforms:

a) lengthen the platforms (duh)

b)  and orange-H will be QB express-63-6 Ave trains, and both services will go to the Rutgers tunnel.  This will force M to Chambers and all M customers must transfer at  Essex, Bowery (to Grand street hopefully), or Canal for Midtwon service.

c) Truncating  and  services at 57th/6th and having the QB express trains go via 63rd to the Broadway express.   and  would now serve as QB express trains.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Quote

Is this operationally similar to the current operations at Gold street 

In a sense, yes. However the design of the interlocking at Gold St is really what causes the problems. Operators are required to stop and physically switch their tracks and this requires all trains behind them, on both lines, to stop. The interlocking itself is designed like a mini roller coaster which slows trains too. Automating this process will speed things up. Deinterlining will speed it up even more since there are no merges.

In the case of 2nd Ave/63rd St the merge wouldn't be as bad as Gold St but it would still be a merge none the less. The original 2nd Ave track layout (from the 70s that is) was supposed to account for this: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif With two sets of tracks at 72nd and 57th St stations you could manage the merges just fine. 72nd was then truncated to a three-track station (which would have also worked ok) but this was cut down to the present two-track station due to costs. 

Luckily we still haven't built Phase 3 yet and can still design it for a better merge. One issue with the 72nd St station was that it was too wide for the avenue. Building the 55th St station (location as proposed in the official Phase 3) with two levels, ala Archer Ave, would allow for much better merge ops and keep the station envelope safely under 2nd Ave.

Quote

Also, I suppose one could decide to truncate  and  at 57th/6th and then have the Broadway express trains continue on 63rd with  to 125th/2nd and  to the QB express?

This is an alternative I've considered and one which might make more sense. I don't love terminating 6th Ave locals at 57th St but from a service level standpoint it'd be ok. By that I mean you aren't ever going to have nor need 30tph from Culver+Myrtle so 57th St can work fine capacity wise. 

Lets say 2nd Ave runs through Montague and down 4th Ave. Then the N/Q can be switched to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach (B/D via Brighton). 2nd Ave becomes a nice redundant trunk for these trains if there is a problem along Broadway. Same for if there is a problem along lower 2nd Ave, those trains can just run via Broadway. It's basically the same pairing as the  and  today. There still is 6th Ave redundancy with my plan, just a couple more moving parts.

I'd say probably the only bad part of  or  to QBL exp is that you are sacrificing space on the trains. s use the longer IND cars while the  or  use the shorter BMT cars. If we keep to the QBL local this isn't much of a problem (as the  is today) but it's a net loss for the express. I'm still a fan of having the  and  be the QBL exp via 53rd instead but there are arguments against this.

Quote

I just wanted to point out that trunk lines that terminate without splitting into two branches would be more limited in the number of trains that service it.  So the 8th Ave local couldn't possibly run 30 TPH, if all service terminates at WTC, since the service on the line would be limited by the turning capacity of WTC.  (Broadway expresses would be similarly limited if all Broadway expresses terminated at 57th.)

8th Ave local trains aren't as packed out as the express trains so you don't need 30tph to WTC. This is why I have the  as a rush hour only train. The  local will be plenty. It's another reason why I prefer  and  trains be the QBL exp so that they can take advantage of the extra capacity on Fulton St. Having 4 potential terminals (Euclid, Lefferts, Rock Park and Far Rock) gives you the flexibility to terminate more trains, and you need those more trains on QBL exp over anything else.

Quote

If we assume that the future phases of SAS has no budget for the Whitehall-Court tunnel that  trains will use on the above map, will it then make sense to run Q from 57th to CI via Brighton line, N from Astoria via Bwy and Brighton express to Brighton Beach and R as the Astoria-Whitehall Broadway local?  I definitely see the benefits of having 2nd Ave trains instead of Broadway locals serving the Montague tunnel and the West End line.

Under this plan the  would be cut off from a yard so it's a non starter. I'd argue the  would still run to CI via 4th Ave local and keep 2nd Ave either terminating at Broad St or short turning some  trains at Whitehall and interlining 2nd Ave down to CI. Obviously the last one is the least ideal.

Quote

And, finally, is there any feasible way to have both T and V going straight down 2nd Ave without turning so that F and M can go straight down 63rd without turning and establishing a transfer between the two lines?  Say a station on the SAS at 61st and a walkway from the existing 63rd/Lex station where we can also tie in 59th/Lex. 

I gotta say, for all the time I've spent thinking about 2nd Ave and subway improvements, I hadn't come up with this. It's certainly not ideal but it is practical enough to be looked at. Assuming that a 2nd Ave/61st St station is built then the connecting mezzanine between it and the Lex/63rd St station would be about 800' This is less than the transfer between 8th Ave and 7th Ave at Times Sq so it's got precedent. 

The question then becomes just how many people are we now forcing to walk 1,600' every day? The Achille's Heel of 2nd Ave is that it doesn't really run through the heart of the CBD in midtown; rather it skirts it to the east. There are far more jobs between 7th Ave and Madison Ave than between Madison Ave and 2nd Ave so you really do have a sizeable demand for direct 6th or 7th Ave service from both the UES and Queens.  So forcing more riders to make that long transfer seems to me to be a net loss. This is why, even after proposing to deinterline most of the subway network, I still see some benefit to reverse branching up 2nd Ave and into Queens. It ain't perfect but it solves the problem in the best way we can given our network limitations.

That said, one thing I'm looking at is how to design Phase 3 with the right provisions for either express tracks to the Bronx or a new tunnel to Queens. At the VERY LEAST, for multiple reasons, Phase 3 must feature four-tracks between 42nd St and 63rd St. If you've got that then you future proof yourself enough to where we can put up with reverse branching while we watch how the future demand plays out.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Personally, I also wondered why the old Board of Transportation chose 2nd Avenue instead of 3rd to be where the Second System’s Manhattan trunk line was to be located. I mean, the 3rd Ave el was ultimately going to come down as well (and it did in 1955 south of 149th St). I guess they also wanted to get the largely residential areas located east of the Midtown CBD. But 2nd it was and we now have the three stations that are located there, so we should just go from there.

One plan from the 60s did have a 2nd-to-6th service, and like you said there will be sizable demand for it, so rerouting the  there works once Phase 3 comes on line.  Definitely think they should consider four tracks between at least 63rd and 42nd. 

[mrsman]

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Personally, I also wondered why the old Board of Transportation chose 2nd Avenue instead of 3rd to be where the Second System’s Manhattan trunk line was to be located. I mean, the 3rd Ave el was ultimately going to come down as well (and it did in 1955 south of 149th St). I guess they also wanted to get the largely residential areas located east of the Midtown CBD. But 2nd it was and we now have the three stations that are located there, so we should just go from there.

One plan from the 60s did have a 2nd-to-6th service, and like you said there will be sizable demand for it, so rerouting the  there works once Phase 3 comes on line.  Definitely think they should consider four tracks between at least 63rd and 42nd. 

I would assume the thinking was to provide service in a way so that more of Manhattan is within reasonable walking distance of the subway.  There are parts of Manhattan along the upper East side (East End Ave) and also the Lower east side/Alphabet city, where even a walk from the East River to 2nd Ave is a considerable distance.  It certainly explains why the old 2nd ave el moved to 1st ave south of 23rd street.

Notwithstanding that, though, there are some very good arguments for running along 3rd Ave through the core of Midtown, even if running along 2nd Ave north of 72nd and south of 23rd.  Namely, you would provide service into the main CBD if you are one avenue closer and you are also closer to the Lex line which would allow for transfers to the crosstown subways on 63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd by providing a station on 3rd Ave with a connection to the existing Lex

[Caelestor]

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Personally, I also wondered why the old Board of Transportation chose 2nd Avenue instead of 3rd to be where the Second System’s Manhattan trunk line was to be located. I mean, the 3rd Ave el was ultimately going to come down as well (and it did in 1955 south of 149th St). I guess they also wanted to get the largely residential areas located east of the Midtown CBD. But 2nd it was and we now have the three stations that are located there, so we should just go from there.

One plan from the 60s did have a 2nd-to-6th service, and like you said there will be sizable demand for it, so rerouting the  there works once Phase 3 comes on line.  Definitely think they should consider four tracks between at least 63rd and 42nd. 

 

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

I would assume the thinking was to provide service in a way so that more of Manhattan is within reasonable walking distance of the subway.  There are parts of Manhattan along the upper East side (East End Ave) and also the Lower east side/Alphabet city, where even a walk from the East River to 2nd Ave is a considerable distance.  It certainly explains why the old 2nd ave el moved to 1st ave south of 23rd street.

Notwithstanding that, though, there are some very good arguments for running along 3rd Ave through the core of Midtown, even if running along 2nd Ave north of 72nd and south of 23rd.  Namely, you would provide service into the main CBD if you are one avenue closer and you are also closer to the Lex line which would allow for transfers to the crosstown subways on 63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd by providing a station on 3rd Ave with a connection to the existing Lex

In an ideal world, both 2 Ave and 3 Ave would have a subway line. However, SAS needed to be built first because it has a larger catchment area, and one aim of the subway should be to spur development around its stops. Between 14 and 72 Sts, 1 Ave has a lot of destinations, including hospitals, universities, and riverside properties, that are much better served using 2 Ave. The LES would also benefit more from a 2 Ave line, though that neighborhood ultimately needs a line under Ave B or Ave C in the long term.

That said, 3 Ave / Bowery is a good candidate for another trunk line; the transfers to the Nassau St, Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, 59 St, and 63 St crosstown lines are all better there than 2 Ave, and it could turn east under 72 St to connect to SAS before heading into Queens. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Caelestor

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/25/2021 at 8:54 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Personally, I also wondered why the old Board of Transportation chose 2nd Avenue instead of 3rd to be where the Second System’s Manhattan trunk line was to be located. I mean, the 3rd Ave el was ultimately going to come down as well (and it did in 1955 south of 149th St). I guess they also wanted to get the largely residential areas located east of the Midtown CBD. But 2nd it was and we now have the three stations that are located there, so we should just go from there.

One plan from the 60s did have a 2nd-to-6th service, and like you said there will be sizable demand for it, so rerouting the  there works once Phase 3 comes on line.  Definitely think they should consider four tracks between at least 63rd and 42nd. 

 

On 3/26/2021 at 11:51 AM, mrsman said:

I would assume the thinking was to provide service in a way so that more of Manhattan is within reasonable walking distance of the subway.  There are parts of Manhattan along the upper East side (East End Ave) and also the Lower east side/Alphabet city, where even a walk from the East River to 2nd Ave is a considerable distance.  It certainly explains why the old 2nd ave el moved to 1st ave south of 23rd street.

Notwithstanding that, though, there are some very good arguments for running along 3rd Ave through the core of Midtown, even if running along 2nd Ave north of 72nd and south of 23rd.  Namely, you would provide service into the main CBD if you are one avenue closer and you are also closer to the Lex line which would allow for transfers to the crosstown subways on 63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd by providing a station on 3rd Ave with a connection to the existing Lex

 

19 hours ago, Caelestor said:

 

In an ideal world, both 2 Ave and 3 Ave would have a subway line. However, SAS needed to be built first because it has a larger catchment area, and one aim of the subway should be to spur development around its stops. Between 14 and 72 Sts, 1 Ave has a lot of destinations, including hospitals, universities, and riverside properties, that are much better served using 2 Ave. The LES would also benefit more from a 2 Ave line, though that neighborhood ultimately needs a line under Ave B or Ave C in the long term.

That said, 3 Ave / Bowery is a good candidate for another trunk line; the transfers to the Nassau St, Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, 59 St, and 63 St crosstown lines are all better there than 2 Ave, and it could turn east under 72 St to connect to SAS before heading into Queens. 

3rd has better transfers but 2nd has better coverage, yes. But also keep in mind that in 1930 it was not exactly obvious that Downtown was going to shrink in importance as much as it has today; the end of Nassau was not something being considered, so demolishing it/totally reconfiguring it was not on the table. And if you can't demolish Nassau, then you can't route a 3rd subway down into Lower Manhattan easily.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/26/2021 at 2:51 PM, mrsman said:

I would assume the thinking was to provide service in a way so that more of Manhattan is within reasonable walking distance of the subway.  There are parts of Manhattan along the upper East side (East End Ave) and also the Lower east side/Alphabet city, where even a walk from the East River to 2nd Ave is a considerable distance.  It certainly explains why the old 2nd ave el moved to 1st ave south of 23rd street.

Notwithstanding that, though, there are some very good arguments for running along 3rd Ave through the core of Midtown, even if running along 2nd Ave north of 72nd and south of 23rd.  Namely, you would provide service into the main CBD if you are one avenue closer and you are also closer to the Lex line which would allow for transfers to the crosstown subways on 63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd by providing a station on 3rd Ave with a connection to the existing Lex

 

21 hours ago, Caelestor said:

 

In an ideal world, both 2 Ave and 3 Ave would have a subway line. However, SAS needed to be built first because it has a larger catchment area, and one aim of the subway should be to spur development around its stops. Between 14 and 72 Sts, 1 Ave has a lot of destinations, including hospitals, universities, and riverside properties, that are much better served using 2 Ave. The LES would also benefit more from a 2 Ave line, though that neighborhood ultimately needs a line under Ave B or Ave C in the long term.

That said, 3 Ave / Bowery is a good candidate for another trunk line; the transfers to the Nassau St, Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, 59 St, and 63 St crosstown lines are all better there than 2 Ave, and it could turn east under 72 St to connect to SAS before heading into Queens. 

Agreed that 2 Avenue has a larger catchment area versus 3rd, and 1st is only viable below 23rd Street. In fact, the 2nd Avenue El shifted over to 1st south of 23rd, though having the subway do that might slow down trains’ speed. The MTA’s intention of a two-track SAS with widely spaced stations was to show that it could achieve high speeds without express trains, but if it shifts alignment too much, it would defeat that purpose. A line under Avenue B or C would most likely have to be a completely separate service from SAS. 

I seem to recall reading in 2003, either on SubChat or SubTalk before Dave Pirmann shut it down for good, a suggestion to use Federal money given to the MTA after the 9/11 attacks  to build Phase 4 (yes, Phase 4) of the SAS first. This was the money the MTA put towards building new South Ferry. The poster suggested extending the  from 2nd Ave east along the  to East Broadway, then southwest along East Broadway towards Pearl and Water streets to Whitehall. He justified it as giving commuters another way out of Lower Manhattan and as a way to jumpstart construction on the SAS. But it was just the poster’s suggestion and it didn’t go anywhere. The MTA was committed to doing the new South Ferry station, as the old one was not easy to keep in operation due to the short length loop platform and the maintenance required to keep the moving parts of the platform in service. And City and State pols at the time were committed to rebuilding in the immediate World Trade Center area and weren’t really thinking about the rest of Lower Manhattan.

Perhaps this SubTalk poster’s suggestion for extending the  to Whitehall could have served as the foundation for a line serving the LES. But the will to do it just wasn’t there in 2003. And given the further job decline in Lower Manhattan over the past almost two decades, the will to do it isn’t likely to be there now.

Edited March 27, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I seem to recall reading in 2003, either on SubChat or SubTalk before Dave Pirmann shut it down for good, a suggestion to use Federal money given to the MTA after the 9/11 attacks  to build Phase 4 (yes, Phase 4) of the SAS first. This was the money the MTA put towards building new South Ferry. The poster suggested extending the  from 2nd Ave east along the  to East Broadway, then southwest along East Broadway towards Pearl and Water streets to Whitehall. He justified it as giving commuters another way out of Lower Manhattan and as a way to jumpstart construction on the SAS. But it was just the poster’s suggestion and it didn’t go anywhere. The MTA was committed to doing the new South Ferry station, as the old one was not easy to keep in operation due to the short length loop platform and the maintenance required to keep the moving parts of the platform in service. And City and State pols at the time were committed to rebuilding in the immediate World Trade Center area and weren’t really thinking about the rest of Lower Manhattan.

Perhaps this SubTalk poster’s suggestion for extending the  to Whitehall could have served as the foundation for a line serving the LES. But the will to do it just wasn’t there in 2003. And given the further job decline in Lower Manhattan over the past almost two decades, the will to do it isn’t likely to be there now.

It also wouldn't have been much towards Phase IV. There wasn't that much money for MTA reconstruction. New South Ferry was half a billion dollars total; SAS Phase I is $4B and change, Phase II is $7B going on 8.

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 3/18/2021 at 1:01 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

I mean  on the Jamaica Line is still a good idea. But even with the capacity improvements you get with deinterlining and CBTC the Jamaica Line isn't going to be able to handle  and  trains; I think turning the J into basically a shuttle isn't the best plan even with a redesigned Essex St station. And since this plan would cut off all of the Jamaica/Myrtle Lines from a 2nd Ave transfer you'd really have to prove that such a switch would have overwhelming benefits. With this newer plan at least you've got direct east side service and transfers to 6th Ave service. 

Well I disagree with rerouting the B and D to Williamburg I don’t think it a good idea because Brooklyn riders would lose access to the 6th ave line and if reroutings are needed on 6th ave service the entire service would be screwed since at least the current lay out for rerouting allow for trains to go to Coney Island either way. Further more many riders would piss because they don’t want to lose 6th Ave service to Coney Island or lose access to lower Manhattan Nassau in Williamsburg. Not to mention that Jamaica line can’t handle 75 foot long train cars If necessary we should extend a 2nd ave line via a new tunnel to Williamburg or the Williamburg bridge so I perform this newer plan. I like the new plan.  Think we could include express tracks for W train service

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/26/2021 at 9:01 PM, Caelestor said:

 

In an ideal world, both 2 Ave and 3 Ave would have a subway line. However, SAS needed to be built first because it has a larger catchment area, and one aim of the subway should be to spur development around its stops. Between 14 and 72 Sts, 1 Ave has a lot of destinations, including hospitals, universities, and riverside properties, that are much better served using 2 Ave. The LES would also benefit more from a 2 Ave line, though that neighborhood ultimately needs a line under Ave B or Ave C in the long term.

That said, 3 Ave / Bowery is a good candidate for another trunk line; the transfers to the Nassau St, Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, 59 St, and 63 St crosstown lines are all better there than 2 Ave, and it could turn east under 72 St to connect to SAS before heading into Queens. 

And if anything, I would with the SAS look to move the line to 1st Avenue south of 23rd Street the way the 2nd Avenue El did.  With additional avenues east of 1st once you get below 23rd and especially 14th Street, I think it would do even better.  Such going south can work like this:

23rd Street/1st-2nd Avenues
14th Street-1st Avenue (Transfer to at 1st Avenue instead of 3rd).
St, Mark's Place
1st Street-1st Avenue (Transfer to ) with potentially being able to connect the SAS to the current line where that line then goes to Essex-Delancey and into Brooklyn)
Grand Street-Allen Street (possible transfer to ) 
East Broadway-Pike Street (goes on East Broadway to Chatham Square)
Chatam Square 
Planned route after Chatam Square

This I suspect would work better for the  by having it go on 1st avenue and Allen Street south of 23rd.

[rbrome]

13 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And if anything, I would with the SAS look to move the line to 1st Avenue south of 23rd Street the way the 2nd Avenue El did.  With additional avenues east of 1st once you get below 23rd and especially 14th Street, I think it would do even better.  Such going south can work like this:

23rd Street/1st-2nd Avenues
14th Street-1st Avenue (Transfer to at 1st Avenue instead of 3rd).
St, Mark's Place
1st Street-1st Avenue (Transfer to ) with potentially being able to connect the SAS to the current line where that line then goes to Essex-Delancey and into Brooklyn)
Grand Street-Allen Street (possible transfer to ) 
East Broadway-Pike Street (goes on East Broadway to Chatham Square)
Chatam Square 
Planned route after Chatam Square

This I suspect would work better for the  by having it go on 1st avenue and Allen Street south of 23rd.

Thank you! I agree 1000% I cannot understand why the MTA wants to build a whole new line through that part of town and have it effectively duplicate the 6 instead of actually serving Alphabet City. Alphabet City is one of the largest transit deserts in Manhattan; this is a once-in-a-century opportunity to correct that. 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, rbrome said:

Thank you! I agree 1000% I cannot understand why the MTA wants to build a whole new line through that part of town and have it effectively duplicate the 6 instead of actually serving Alphabet City. Alphabet City is one of the largest transit deserts in Manhattan; this is a once-in-a-century opportunity to correct that. 

They have studied it.

There are zero Alphabet City alignments that are constructible without slowing down everyone passing through Alphabet City, so it's never been a realistic option. Duplicating the Lex is kind of the point of providing relief to it.